ALLIANT ENERGY: Trial in Pension Plan Suit Set for June 2010------------------------------------------------------------The trial in a putative-class action lawsuit filed against Alliant Energy Corp.'s Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan (Plan)has been set for June 2010, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In February 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Plan.

The complaint alleges that Plan participants who received a lump sum distribution prior to their normal retirement age did not receive the full benefit to which they were entitled in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 because the Plan applied an improper interest crediting rate to project the cash balance account to their normal retirement age.

These Plan participants are limited to individuals who, prior to normal retirement age, received a lump sum distribution and/or received any form of distribution calculated under the Plan's prior formula after that benefit was determined to be more valuable than their benefit calculated under the Plan's cash balance formula.

The court has certified two subclasses of plaintiffs that inaggregate include all persons vested or partially vested in thePlan who received a lump sum distribution of the cash balanceformula benefit from Jan. 1, 1998 through Aug. 17, 2006including:

1) persons who received a lump sum distribution from Jan. 1, 1998 through Feb. 28, 2002; and

2) persons who received a lump sum distribution from Feb. 29, 2002 through Aug. 17, 2006.

Alliant Energy is contesting the case and trial is scheduled for June 2010.

In September 2009, the plaintiffs submitted reports by their expert witnesses that quantified the alleged underpayments owed to plaintiffs between $24 million and $54 million, including interest. Alliant Energy disputes these amounts.

Alliant Energy Corp. -- http://www.alliantenergy.com-- is a public utility holding company. The Company has four primaryfirst tier subsidiaries of Alliant Energy are: Interstate Power and Light Company (IPL), Wisconsin Power and Light Company(WPL), Alliant Energy Resources, Inc. (Resources) and Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. (Corporate Services).

BP PLC: Lawyers Trying to Figure Out How to Let Animals Sue------------------------------------------------------------Dionne Searcey at The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reports that a story in The Seattle Times this week about an Exxon Valdez survivor, an otter that had been sickly for years after being rescued from the slick in Prince William Sound (spoiler alert: it's a sad ending), got us thinking. Do the wildlife victims of the current oil spill in the Gulf have any legal rights?

The short answer, Mr. Searcey says: not really.

There are no laws that exist simply to protect animal interests. U.S. law protects animals as property. That means laws designed to protect animals exist only to protect the interests of their owners or the public, say animal activists who specialize in animal law. And some animals are entirely exempt from the laws.

"Most of the wild animals affected by the BP spill do not have any legal protections at all, and there is no penalty that can be imposed for suffocating them with oil, destroying their habitats and otherwise harming them," said Justin Goodman, a representative of PETA.

The Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act have protections in place for the dolphins, whales and sea turtles that live in the Gulf. But the Minerals Management Service has approved oil exploration without the permits required by the two acts. The Obama administration is the target of lawsuits over this.

The Department of Interior says on its website the BP oil spill has prompted the agency to improve and strengthen reviews of drilling procedures required under the two acts.

Plaintiffs' attorneys aren't exactly holding back when it comes to trying to reel in new oil spill clients. And we've written about the creativity of animal rights attorneys when it comes to finding ways to protect our furry brethren. It's not a stretch to think that these lawyers will sift through local animal cruelty statutes to examine whether they can pin spill-related animal deaths and injuries on what they may say is BP's negligence.

This week the Defenders of Wildlife and the Southern Environmental Law Center sued BP, noting the Endangered Species Act prohibits the "take" of endangered species. The ESA defines "take" as meaning "to harass, harm, pursue.or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."

The Defenders note government wildlife agencies have interpreted "harm" as meaning "an act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife" and may include "significant habitat modification or degradation."

BP did not respond to a request for comment. Mr. Searcey relates.

CALIFORNIA: Deaf Worker Says Reasonable Accommodations Inadequate-----------------------------------------------------------------David Fazio at Examiner.com reports that on May 21, 2010, employees for the State of California filed a class action lawsuit in the San Francisco Superior Court against Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the State of California alleging a systemic failure in reasonably accommodating deaf employees. The plaintiffs claim this failure violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law.

According to statistics maintained by the State Personnel Board, California employs more than 230,000 workers, and is the State's largest employer. More than 1,500 of these employees are deaf or hearing impaired.

The plaintiffs are not seeking monetary compensation in remedy of the lawsuit, instead they are asking for improvement in the State's policies and procedures for handling accommodations for its deaf employees. According to the plaintiffs, the State regularly fails to fulfill interpreter requests for meetings, training, performance reviews and meetings with consumers and the public. The lawsuit also asserts that the State does not have adequate emergency evacuation procedures. Among the State Agencies accused are the Department of Rehabilitation, Department of Justice, California Public Employees Retirement System and the Department of Social Services.

Plaintiffs attest that requests for sign language interpreters are repeatedly ignored or denied. The "Class" says that they are frequently pressured to try to get by through lip-reading, which they believe to be ineffective in many circumstances, or with the help of co-workers (not certified interpreters), or rely on passing notes.

The Office of Deaf Access for the Department of Social Services, whose purpose is to address the communication needs of the deaf community, is particularly under fire by the accusations in this lawsuit. A deaf employee there says that she has difficulty obtaining accommodations needed for her to communicate in the workplace.

Plaintiffs claim they are heavily burdened, as they must often recite their legal rights when pursuing accommodations.

The State recognizes the need for sign language interpreters and other forms of reasonable accommodations, but the policies, procedures, and practice in facilitating these accommodations are under critical scrutiny by this class action.

This lawsuit also raises a serious question about the efficiency of reasonable accommodation within the State Agencies of California with numerous reports of employees being left behind in buildings during evacuation drills and actual emergencies.

The class action identifies other workplace barriers such as malfunctioning, or a lack of, effective assistive technology.

CANADA: Hepatitis C Victim Settlement Fund Runs Dry---------------------------------------------------Steve Buist at The Hamilton Spectator reports that Health Canada declined to indicate Monday if the federal government is prepared to inject additional money if necessary to fully pay claimants in a $1-billion class action settlement with people who were infected with hepatitis C-tainted blood either before 1986 or after 1990.

The family of a Burlington man who died from a hepatitis C-tainted blood transfusion was told recently that the overwhelming majority of its approved claim for compensation can't be paid because the settlement pool of funds has run dry.

Bob Green contracted hepatitis C in 1985, just a month before a kidney transplant, and he eventually died from the disease in 2002.

The government set aside about $1 billion to pay out victims' claims, with the money divided into two pools - a general compensation fund, and a pool of money for those affected most severely to cover future lost income and relief for their dependants.

About $250 million remains available in the general compensation part of the pool, but so far, the government has not indicated if it will transfer any of the money into the second pool or provide additional funds if the original $1-billion settlement is insufficient.

Health Canada issued a statement yesterday suggesting that it's up to the lawyers representing the class of victims to ask the court to approve a transfer of funds.

"The federal government has not received notification from the courts that class counsel is requesting a transfer of funds," Health Canada said in a statement to The Spectator.

"We do not respond directly to compensation inquiries because this money is being paid out through a court ordered process, which is at arms length from Health Canada," said the statement.

Nancy Killam, senior project manager with Crawford Class Action Services, said the sufficiency of the funds is "out of our control."

"We're very compassionate about the situation the claimants are in, but there really isn't anything we can do until we get direction," said Killam.

Crawford Class Action Services is the independent administrator of the claims process. The agency is given the task of approving or denying claims, but the funds are provided by the federal government and individual settlement amounts are pre-determined based on a number of factors.

"We do everything we possibly can to help a claimant become successful, because we want them to get paid," said Killam.

"It is hard to be in the middle."

CIRCUIT CITY: Employees Can't Pursue Class Claim in Bankruptcy--------------------------------------------------------------The Honorable Kevin R. Huennekens held a hearing on April 15, 2010, in In re Circuit City Stories, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-35653 (Bankr. E.D. Va.), to consider the omnibus motion of Robert Gentry, Jack Hernandez, Jonathan Card, and Joseph Skaf for an Order Applying Bankruptcy Rule 7023 to Their Class Proofs of Claim Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9014(c), the Debtors' response, and the Claimants' reply. At the conclusion of the Hearing, the Court announced its decision to deny the Motion. A copy of Judge Huennekens's Memorandum Opinion is available at:

The Claimants contend that Circuit City violated the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code.

CLECO CORP: Cleco Power Removes Suit to Louisiana Federal Court---------------------------------------------------------------Cleco Corporation's wholly owned subsidiary, Cleco Power LLC, has removed a purported class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Opelousas electric customers from state to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On March 9, 2010, a complaint was filed in the 27th Judicial District Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, on behalf of three Cleco Power customers in Opelousas, Louisiana.

The complaint alleges that Cleco Power overcharged the plaintiffs by applying to customers in Opelousas the same retail rates as Cleco Power applies to all of its retail customers. The plaintiffs allege that Cleco Power should have established, solely for customers in Opelousas, retail rates that are separate and distinct from the retail rates that apply to other customers of Cleco Power and that Cleco Power should not collect from customers in Opelousas the storm surcharge approved by the LPSC following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Cleco Power currently operates in Opelousas pursuant to a franchise granted to Cleco Power by the city of Opelousas in 1986 and an Operating and Franchise Agreement dated May 14, 1991, pursuant to which Cleco Power operates its own electric facilities and leases and operates electric facilities owned by the city of Opelousas.

In April 2010, Cleco Power filed a petition with the LPSC appealing to its expertise in declaring that the ratepayers of Opelousas have been properly charged the rates that are applicable to Cleco Power's retail customers and that no overcharges have been collected. In addition, Cleco Power removed the purported class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Opelousas electric customers from state to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, so that it could be properly addressed under the terms of the Class Action Fairness Act.

Cleco Corp. -- http://www.cleco.com/-- is a regional energy company headquartered in Pineville, La. It operates a regulated electric utility company, Cleco Power LLC, which serves about 277,000 retail customers across Louisiana. Cleco also operates a wholesale energy business, Cleco Midstream Resources LLC, which includes the pending sale of Acadia Power Station Unit 2.

DUROLITE INT'L: Third Circuit Remands for Class Recertification---------------------------------------------------------------Eight years ago, Sheinberg, et al. v. Sorensen, et al., Case No. 00-cv-06041 (D. N.J.) (Cecchi, J.), was certified as a class action. Three years ago, the District Court decertified the class in an opinion stressing the inadequacies of then-class counsel. After plaintiffs-appellants obtained new counsel, they moved to recertify the class. The District Court denied that motion, and plaintiffs brought an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Because the District Court failed to apply the correct standards in ruling on the motion for recertification, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court's opinion and remanded the case. Sheinberg, et al. v. Sorensen, et al., No. 08-4148, slip op. http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/084148p.pdf(3d Cir. May 28, 2010).

In 2000, a light bulb manufacturer known as DuroTest closed. Thereafter, plaintiffs, former DuroTest employees, filed suit in New Jersey federal court against companies affiliated with DuroTest and against Robert Sorensen, the Chief Executive Officer of those companies. Plaintiffs seek damages for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 et seq., the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2101 et seq., and New Jersey state law. On May 20, 2002, the District Court certified the case as a class action, and in December 2005, a different District Judge denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.

GAP INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Data Breach Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------Joel Ruiz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, sued Gap, Inc. and Vangent, Inc., seeking damages and injunctive relief based on the theft of a laptop computer that contained his social security number. The U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Gap and Vangent on summary judgment. Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the decision to dismiss the lawsuit. Ruiz v. Gap, Inc., and Vangent, Inc., No. 09-15971, slip op. http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100528188(9th Cir. May 28, 2010).

GOOGLE INC: Buzz Service Privacy Breach Suit filed in D. Colo. --------------------------------------------------------------Rick Carroll at the Glenwood Springs Post Independent reports that an Aspen, Colo., law firm has filed a class-action complaint on behalf of millions of Google e-mail users, alleging the Internet host violated their privacy.

Filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court of Denver, the lawsuit seeks to attain class-action status on behalf of users of Google's free e-mail service, Gmail.

Aspen attorneys John Case and Lauren Maytin are the two plaintiffs who represent the users in the class-action suit, which was filed by the Aspen firm Thomas Genshaft PC. Neither Maytin nor Case are members of Thomas Genshaft PC.

The suit accuses California-based Google of violating three federal communications laws - the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Stored Communications Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - after it rolled out its Google Buzz social networking service Feb. 9. The suit also alleges violation of privacy under Colorado common law.

According to allegations in the suit, Google Buzz exposed Gmail users' private information -- on their public profiles -- by unveiling with whom they e-mailed or chatted the most. The information, otherwise known as a "following list," was released without the users' explicit permission, the suit says.

"Users were not warned that their lists would be automatically visible to the public," the court filing says, adding that the "activation of Buzz disclosed not only portions of users' contact lists, but more specifically disclosed the contacts with whom users communicate most often, and making those lists publicly searchable on the Internet."

The suit alleges that Google "deceptively portrayed" to Gmail users that they could bypass the Buzz service, but "in reality, no matter which button the user selected, Google Buzz was automatically activated and embedded into the user's Gmail sidebar."

The Aspen-based lawsuit follows several other legal actions taken against Google over its Buzz service.

Harvard Law School filed a class-action suit seven days after Google Buzz debuted, and law firms in San Francisco and Washington, D.C., have filed a similar case on behalf of a Florida woman, according to published reports.

While Google has addressed the situation by allowing users to shut off its Buzz option, that effort "does not alleviate the privacy concerns of the general public," claims the Aspen lawsuit.

The suit adds that "when plaintiffs and other class members created Gmail accounts, they signed up for e-mail services. Their expectations did not include social networking."

Along with monetary damages, the suit seeks a court order that would force Google to make Buzz an "opt-in" service for Gmail users, and stop Google from creating social networking lists from its Gmail users' private contacts.

Those involved in the class-action suit could number in the millions, as there are 37 million subscribers to Gmail, the suit says. While the suit does not specify how much in total monetary damages is being sought, at least $5 million is required for class-action certification in federal court.

Peter Thomas, who filed the complaint, and Case, one of the plaintiffs, could not be reached for comment Monday. The other named plaintiff, Maytin, declined to discuss the suit when contacted by Mr. Carroll.

JEROME KRAUSE: Accused of Not Honoring Rebate & Discount Offers---------------------------------------------------------------Deborah S. Fish, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated v. Jerome Krause Fashion Hair, Inc., Case No. 2010-CH-22745 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 27, 2010), asserts violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Ms. Fish says that the wig specialist, an in-network provider for United HealthCare (UH), misrepresented that purchasers of its medical supplies would only have to pay 60% of the sales price of the medical supply purchased. Ms Fish explains that Krause requested the consumer to pay 100% of the sales price of the medical supply purchased and to make a claim for refund from UH, promising to reimburse the consumer for the difference after the consumer receives payment from UH. But when consumers sought the balance from Krause, Krause refused to make good on its promise. Ms. Fish is a consumer insured by United HealthCare who, because of her medical condition (one of the manifestations of which is loss of hair), purchased a wig from Krause.

L.A. FITNESS: Sued for Requiring Employees to Work Off-the-Clock---------------------------------------------------------------- Devon Del Valle, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. L.A. Fitness International LLC, Case No. 2010-00375634 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty. May 26, 2010), accuses the fitness club operator of requiring employees to work "off the clock" without compensation; failing to pay overtime wages; failing to reimburse for business expenses; failing to provide itemized wage statements; failing to provide meal and rest periods; and engaging in unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of the Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. Mr. Devon Del Valle was employed as a "Membership Counselor" for L.A. Fitness in the County of Fresno.

METLIFE INC: Settlement in "Fiala" Gets Court's Final Approval--------------------------------------------------------------The Superior Court of New York County entered final judgment confirming the approval of the settlement and dismissing the consolidated state court class action captioned Fiala, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al., according to MetLife, Inc.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The company is a defendant a lawsuit challenging the fairness of the Plan and the adequacy and accuracy of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's disclosure to policyholders regarding MLIC's plan of reorganization, as amended.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated state court class action, Fiala, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al. (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed March 17, 2000), sought compensatory relief and punitive damages against MLIC, the Holding Company, and individual directors. The court certified a litigation class of present and former policyholders on plaintiffs' claim that defendants violated section 7312 of the New York Insurance Law.

The parties to the lawsuit entered into a settlement agreement in November 2009.

The state court approved the settlement in orders issued on March 3, 2010. On March 23, 2010, the state court entered final judgment confirming the approval of the settlement and dismissing the action.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and internationalsubsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail bankingand other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, andservices to corporations and other institutions. The company is organized into five operating segments: Institutional,Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.

METLIFE INC: Settlement in Consolidated Suit Gets Court Approval----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered final judgment confirming the approval of the settlement and dismissing the consolidated federal court class action styled In re MetLife Demutualization Litig., according to MetLife, Inc.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The company is a defendant a lawsuit challenging the fairness of the Plan and the adequacy and accuracy of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's disclosure to policyholders regarding MLIC's plan of reorganization, as amended.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated federal court class action, In re MetLife Demutualization Litig. (E.D.N.Y., filed April 18, 2000), sought rescission and compensatory damages against MLIC and the Holding Company. Plaintiffs asserted violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Plan, claiming that the Policyholder Information Booklets failed to disclose certain material facts and contained certain material misstatements. The court certified a litigation class of present and former policyholders.

The parties to the lawsuit entered into a settlement agreement in November 2009.

The federal court approved the settlement in orders issued on Feb. 12, 2010. On March 2, 2010, the federal court entered final judgment confirming the approval of the settlement and dismissing the action.

On March 15, 2010, an objector filed a notice of appeal of the federal court's order approving the settlement.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and internationalsubsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail bankingand other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, andservices to corporations and other institutions. The company is organized into five operating segments: Institutional,Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.

One suit claims breach of contract and fraud due to the alleged underpayment of medical claims arising from the use of apurportedly biased provider fee pricing system. The second suit currently alleges breach of contract arising from the alleged use of preferred provider organizations to reduce medical provider fees covered by the medical claims portion of the insurance policy.

Motions for class certification have been filed and briefed in both cases.

No further updates were reported in MetLife, Inc.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and internationalsubsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail bankingand other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, andservices to corporations and other institutions. The company is organized into five operating segments: Institutional,Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.

The suit was filed May 19, 2003, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The American Dental Association and three individual providers had sued the company, Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. and other non-affiliated insurance companies in a putative class action lawsuit.

The plaintiffs purported to represent a nationwide class of in-network providers who alleged that their claims were beingwrongfully reduced by downcoding, bundling, and the improper use and programming of software.

The complaint alleged federal racketeering and various state law theories of liability.

On Feb. 10, 2009, the district court granted the company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint,dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims except for breach of contract claims.

Plaintiffs were provided with an opportunity to re-plead the dismissed claims by Feb. 26, 2009.

Since plaintiffs never amended these claims, they were dismissed with prejudice on March 2, 2009.

By order dated March 20, 2009, the district court declined to retain jurisdiction over the remaining breach of contract claims and dismissed the lawsuit.

On April 17, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from this order.

No further updates were reported in MetLife, Inc.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and internationalsubsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail bankingand other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, andservices to corporations and other institutions. The company is organized into five operating segments: Institutional,Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.

The suit was filed Feb. 24, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the District Court of New Jersey.

In this multi-district class action proceeding (MDL No. 1663; Master Docket Nos. 04-5184 and 05-1079), plaintiffs' complaintalleged that the company, MLIC, several non-affiliated insurance companies and several insurance brokers violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and antitrust laws and committed other misconduct in the context of providing insurance to employee benefit plans and to persons who participate in such employee benefit plans.

In August and September 2007 and January 2008, the court issued orders granting defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice the federal antitrust, the RICO, and the ERISA claims.

In February 2008, the court dismissed the remaining state law claims on jurisdictional grounds.

Plaintiffs' appeal from the orders dismissing their RICO and federal antitrust claims is pending with the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Third Circuit.

A putative class action alleging that the company and other non-affiliated defendants violated state laws was transferred to the District of New Jersey but was not consolidated with other related actions. Plaintiffs' motion to remand this action tostate court in Florida is pending.

No further updates were reported in MetLife, Inc.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and internationalsubsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail bankingand other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, andservices to corporations and other institutions. The company is organized into five operating segments: Institutional,Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.

METLIFE INC: Seeks to Dismiss "Market Rate" Tenants Lawsuit-----------------------------------------------------------MetLife, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss an amended complaint in the matter Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer Properties, et al., according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court, New York County, on Jan. 22, 2007

The lawsuit was filed by a putative class of "market rate" tenants at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village againstparties including Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company and Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company. This group oftenants claim that the Company, and since the sale of the properties, Tishman Speyer as current owner, improperly chargedmarket rents when only lower regulated rents were permitted.

The allegations are based on the impact of so-called J-51 tax abatements.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief and damages for rent overcharges.

In August 2007, the trial court granted the company's motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

In March 2009, New York's intermediate appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and reinstated the lawsuit. Thedefendants appealed this ruling to the New York State Court of Appeals, which in October 2009 issued an opinion affirming the ruling of the intermediate appellate court.

The action has been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint and the company has filed a motion to dismiss. The current owner is pursuing potential settlement of the claims against it.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and internationalsubsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail bankingand other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, andservices to corporations and other institutions. The company is organized into five operating segments: Institutional,Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.

A putative class action complaint was filed against MLIC and MetLife Securities, Inc.

Plaintiffs assert legal theories of violations of the federal securities laws and violations of state laws with respect to the sale of certain proprietary products by the company's agency distribution group.

In January and May 2008, the court issued orders granting the defendants' motion to dismiss in part, dismissing all ofplaintiffs' claims except for claims under the Investment Advisers Act.

Defendants' motion to dismiss claims under the Investment Advisers Act was denied.

In March 2009, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

In August 2009, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.

On Sept. 29, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the court's order dismissing the lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in MetLife, Inc.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and internationalsubsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail bankingand other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, andservices to corporations and other institutions. The company is organized into five operating segments: Institutional,Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.

Over the past several years, the company has faced numerous claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging impropermarketing or sales of individual life insurance policies, annuities, mutual funds or other products.

Some of the current cases seek substantial damages, including punitive and treble damages and attorneys' fees.

At Dec. 31, 2009, there were approximately 130 sales practices litigation matters pending against the company.

No further information was disclosed in the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and internationalsubsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail bankingand other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, andservices to corporations and other institutions. The company is organized into five operating segments: Institutional,Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other.

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Certification Denied in Suit vs. PLIC----------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa has denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification in a putative class action lawsuit against Principal Life Insurance Company, according to Principal Financial Group, Inc.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On Nov. 8, 2006, a trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement Savings Plan filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Principal Life.

Principal Life's motion to transfer venue was granted and the case is now pending in the Southern District of Iowa.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that Principal Life breached its alleged fiduciary duties while performing services to 401(k) plans by failing to disclose, or adequately disclose, to employers or plan participants the fact that Principal Life receives "revenue sharing fees from mutual funds that are included in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans" and allegedly failed to use the revenue to defray the expenses of the services provided to the plans. Plaintiff further alleged that these acts constitute prohibited transactions under ERISA.

Plaintiff sought to certify a class of all retirement plans to which Principal Life was a service provider and for which Principal Life received and retained "revenue sharing" fees from mutual funds. On Aug. 27, 2008, the plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied.

The plaintiff's new motion for class certification, filed May 11, 2009, was struck by the court on March 31, 2010.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com/-- is a provider of retirement savings, investment and insurance products and services. PFG's United States and international operations concentrate primarily on asset accumulation and asset management. In addition, it offers a range of individual and group life insurance, group health insurance, individual and group disability insurance and group dental and vision insurance. PFG primarily focus on small and medium-sized businesses providing an array of retirement and employee benefit solutions to meet the needs of the business, the business owner and their employees. PGF has four segments: U.S. Asset Accumulation, Global Asset Management, International Asset Management and Accumulation, and Life and Health Insurance.

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Court Denies Certification in "Walsh" Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Patricia Walsh's motion for class certification in a putative class action lawsuit against Principal Life Insurance Company and Princor Financial Services Corporation has been denied by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, according to Principal Financial Group, Inc.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On Aug. 28, 2007, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Patricia Walsh (and another plaintiff, who subsequently withdrew) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against Principal Life and Princor Financial Services Corporation.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached alleged fiduciary duties to participants in employer-sponsored 401(k) plans who were retiring or leaving their respective plans, including providing misleading information and failing to act solely in the interests of the participants, resulting in alleged violations of ERISA.

The plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied on March 24, 2010.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com/-- is a provider of retirement savings, investment and insurance products and services. PFG's United States and international operations concentrate primarily on asset accumulation and asset management. In addition, it offers a range of individual and group life insurance, group health insurance, individual and group disability insurance and group dental and vision insurance. PFG primarily focus on small and medium-sized businesses providing an array of retirement and employee benefit solutions to meet the needs of the business, the business owner and their employees. PGF has four segments: U.S. Asset Accumulation, Global Asset Management, International Asset Management and Accumulation, and Life and Health Insurance.

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: New Jersey Suit Dismissed----------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court of New Jersey has granted Integrative Chiropractic Center, P.C.'s motion to dismiss without prejudice, a putative class action lawsuit against Principal Financial Group, Inc., and Principal Life Insurance Company, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The suit was filed July 15, 2009.

The complaint alleged the defendants systematically underpaid out of network health claims through use of a national database used to calculate the usual and customary rate. The plaintiff was also suing on behalf of a subset of purported class members who submitted claims under a group health plan subject to ERISA that was insured or administered by us, and were paid less than the amount submitted on the claim. The complaint alleged violations of ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Sherman Act.

On Jan. 7, 2010, the plaintiff's motion to dismiss without prejudice was granted by the court.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com/-- is a provider of retirement savings, investment and insurance products and services. PFG's United States and international operations concentrate primarily on asset accumulation and asset management. In addition, it offers a range of individual and group life insurance, group health insurance, individual and group disability insurance and group dental and vision insurance. PFG primarily focus on small and medium-sized businesses providing an array of retirement and employee benefit solutions to meet the needs of the business, the business owner and their employees. PGF has four segments: U.S. Asset Accumulation, Global Asset Management, International Asset Management and Accumulation, and Life and Health Insurance.

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Consolidated Suit Moved to Southern Iowa-------------------------------------------------------------The matter In re Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation has been moved from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, according to Principal Financial Group, Inc.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On Dec. 2, 2009 and Dec. 4, 2009, two plaintiffs, Cruise and Mullaney, each filed putative class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company, Principal Life Insurance Company, Principal Global Investors, LLC, and Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC.

The lawsuits alleged the defendants failed to manage the Principal U.S. Property Separate Account (PUSPSA) in the best interests of investors, improperly imposed a withdrawal freeze on Sept. 26, 2008, and instituted a withdrawal queue to honor withdrawal requests as sufficient liquidity became available. Plaintiffs allege these actions constitute a breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class including all qualified ERISA plans and the participants of those plans that invested in PUSPSA between Sept. 26, 2008, and the present that have suffered losses caused by the queue.

The two lawsuits, as well as two subsequently filed complaints asserting similar claims, have been consolidated and are now known as In re Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation.

On April 22, 2010, an order was entered granting the motion made by the defendants for change of venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com/-- is a provider of retirement savings, investment and insurance products and services. PFG's United States and international operations concentrate primarily on asset accumulation and asset management. In addition, it offers a range of individual and group life insurance, group health insurance, individual and group disability insurance and group dental and vision insurance. PFG primarily focus on small and medium-sized businesses providing an array of retirement and employee benefit solutions to meet the needs of the business, the business owner and their employees. PGF has four segments: U.S. Asset Accumulation, Global Asset Management, International Asset Management and Accumulation, and Life and Health Insurance.

SEQUENOM INC: Settlement Agreement Gets Court's Final Approval--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, on May 3, 2010, entered an order approving the stipulation of settlement reached in the class action securities lawsuits consolidated under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 3:09-cv-00921 LAB-WMC, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Under the settlement agreement, in exchange for a release of all claims by the class members and a dismissal of the consolidated lawsuits, the company has agreed:

(i) to pay the class members and their attorneys a total of $14 million which will be funded from insurance proceeds,

(ii) to issue to the class members and their attorneys shares of the company's common stock, and

(iii) to adopt certain corporate governance measures, including an amendment to the company's Bylaws to provide that at all times a majority of the company's directors must be independent.

The number of shares of the company's common stock to be issued will be determined on a date to be established after finalapproval of the settlement by the U.S. District Court and will constitute 9.95% of the shares of the company's common stockoutstanding post-issuance, provided that certain shares issued after entry into the stipulation of settlement, including anyshares issued in a bona fide financing, in connection with a licensing, collaboration or acquisition transaction or pursuantto our currently existing equity incentive plans, will be excluded from the shares outstanding calculation.

As of Dec. 23, 2009, the company had 61,693,241 shares of common stock outstanding, and if the share number had been determined as of that date, the company would have been obligated to issue 6,816,743 shares of common stock pursuant to the terms of the settlement.

Sequenom, Inc. -- http://www.sequenom.com/-- is a diagnostic testing and genetics analysis company. The company is focused on providing products, services, diagnostic testing, applications and genetic analysis products that translate the results of genomic science into solutions for biomedical research, translational research, molecular medicine applications, and agricultural, livestock and other areas of research.

THOMSON REUTERS: Distribution of Filed Court Documents Challenged-----------------------------------------------------------------Law Times reports that lawyer Lorne Waldman is spearheading a class action against Thomson Reuters Corp. over the alleged reproduction of filed court documents on the Internet.

The claims, which haven't been proven in court, allege the company allows subscribers to access the materials on a Web site without the consent of the lawyers who wrote them, according to Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP, the Canadian law firm acting as counsel for the plaintiff side.

Waldman is the representative plaintiff in the case, which alleges Thomson Reuters has infringed the Copyright Act.

The claim alleges that legal documents written by Mr. Waldman, on behalf of Mr. Arar, (along with more than 50,000 other documents) have been copied by Thomson Reuters and that verbatim copies of these documents have been made available for download via its "Litigator" service. Litigator is a fee and subscription-based database for lawyer-created court documents that permits users to copy and edit documents for their own purposes. At no time are the authors of these documents informed that their documents are copied, sold, or reproduced. Documents downloaded from this service are branded "(C) Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its Licensors. All rights reserved."

The Plaintiff's law firm has set up a case-specific Web site at http://www.trcopyright.ca/to provide additional information about this litigation.

TORONTO-DOMINION: Kaw Foundation Sees $14.6 Mil. Cy Press Award ---------------------------------------------------------------Julius Melnitzer at the Financial Post reports that in what it describes as a "groundbreaking development relating to class-action settlements, and a significant new funding source for non-profits across Canada," the Law Foundation of Ontario has launched a $14.6 million Access to Justice Fund. The Fund results from the cy-pres aspect of the settlement in a class action suit, Cassano v. Toronto Dominion Bank. The Fund, which is seeking applications, will be used for law-related projects relevant to linguistic minorities and people living in rural and remote areas, aboriginal people, individuals without legal representation, family violence and consumer rights.

TOYOTA MOTOR: One MDL Complaint & Document Turnover Ordered-----------------------------------------------------------Amanda Bronstad at The National Law Journal reports that the federal judge overseeing the multidistrict litigation against the Toyota Motor Corp. ordered its lawyers to turn over tens of thousands of pages of internal documents that the company has already provided to Congress, which is investigating the company's vehicle recalls.

U.S. District Judge James Selna acknowledged the challenges Toyota faces in providing the documents, many of which could end up being privileged or including trade secrets. Some of them still need to be translated into English from Japanese.

But he appeared convinced that some of the documents could be provided within a month, especially since they already are in the hands of Congress.

Such a schedule, Selna said during a hearing on Friday, would "advance the ball" in the litigation, which includes some 300 lawsuits against Toyota. Most of the claims seek economic losses on behalf of consumers; others are personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits.

Toyota's lawyers argued for more time. Lisa Gilford, a Los Angeles partner at Atlanta's Alston & Bird, called the judge's discovery order a "fairly difficult burden" and "aggressive," given that Toyota could be forced to turn over 75,000 pages of documents.

"There are things that need to be worked out before that information can be produced to the plaintiffs," she said.

Vincent Galvin, a partner in the San Jose office of Bowman and Brooke who also represents Toyota, upped that estimate to more than 100,000 pages. Toyota's response to Congress, he said, was like loading up a truck with one's personal belongings in the rush to escape an approaching forest fire, with no time to divide items to be donated to Goodwill from treasured family photos. It's clear from questions Congressional committee members put to Toyota that they "don't know what they got," he said.

Selna acknowledged that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unlike congressional subpoenas, allow Toyota's lawyers to siphon out documents that could qualify for a protective order or attorney-client privilege. "I don't think the plaintiffs have power equal to various branches of government," he said.

Plaintiffs lawyers asked for all the documents. "We need that material to form an educated complaint," said Steve Berman, founding partner of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, one of the lead plaintiffs lawyers.

In the end, Selna gave Toyota's lawyers 30 days to turn over all documents that are not privileged or subject to a protective order, which he expected to issue within a month. Japanese-language documents, he said, did not need to be provided within that schedule, giving time for Toyota's lawyers to translate them.

He ordered the plaintiffs lawyers to file their consolidated class complaint within 60 days, after which Toyota's lawyers could move to dismiss. Selna hoped that schedule would prove adequate for the pleading stage of the case, a "critical milestone in terms of shaping this litigation."

He rejected Toyota's attempts to order that the plaintiffs file four consolidated class complaints based on the different recalls and alleged defects: floor mats, accelerator pedals, electronic throttle control system and claims by entities other than consumers.

"The plaintiffs are the masters of their case," Selna said. "I don't think the role of the court is to impose artificial constraints."

Following the hearing, Berman praised that decision. He also was pleased with the court's discovery order.

"It's already in the truck," he said of Toyota's documents. "Just drive it over here."

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.